to think that very many PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON BENEFITS?

[ParsingFancy]

Because there seems to be some confusion about this.

I keep seeing bollocks like "people in work have to limit their children, so people on benefits should too."

Excuse me, PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON CHILD BENEFIT.

And "working people can't afford adequate housing per child, so people on benefits shouldn't get either."

But PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON HOUSING BENEFIT.

Also, PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON INCOME SUPPORT.

And PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE.

Oh and PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON WORKING TAX CREDITS.
That one was hard, wasn't it?

Ifnotknowthenwhen there is something hideously wrong with a full time worker not being able to live. Min wage needs increasing and rents need reducing. Something drastic needs to happen

If we are changing benefits
I think that the only people who should get child benefit are those entitled to income support or jsa.
Make it clear that it will be phased out from most wealthy to least over the next 2 yrs.

I don't think all pensioners should get blanket benefits. Heating and travel should be awarded only with pension credit.

I have one child, work full time and have a husband who works full time normally. For the last few weeks he was unemployed and we only had my wage coming in plus child benfit of £80 a month. We were told that we can't get WTC or the child element so we didn't persue it even though I earn less than £25,000. Our combined wage is going to be less than £50,000 when he goes back to work but presumably we won't be able to get WTC etc then either (We never did before)

so...

is it having just the one child (who is in childcare) that means we are not able to get these benefits? Or because our wages are over £44,000 (combined) when he's in work?

This always confuses me.

Imo the benefits are there for those who really need them and if you have more than one child and only one wage you probably need them.

We will not be having another child because we wouldn't be able to afford 2 lots of childcare and I don't want to be a SAHM, I want to work.

However, I do have sympathy for people who have lots of children and will lose their benefits because I think this really only makes things worse for the children and it's cruel.

On the other hand... if I chose to be a stay at home mum would that really be fair of me? To expect the state to top up my husband's wage so I can stay at home? I realise it gets very much harder when you have more than one child but don't a lot of people make the decision to have a second and third child based upon how much their income can be supplimented by benefits?

The minimum wage will need to double though...

Correct, Sonnet, almost everyone is in receipt of benefits.

This is the argument.

The whole political diatribe dialogue at the moment is about talking of "benefit claimants" as if They are not Us. That They are some separate species who behave differently from Us, and these species are fixed at birth.

We cannot have a realistic debate about what sort of welfare state we want, when most of the people benefitting from it don't even acknowledge they are doing so (though the CB cap whacked a lot of people round the face with a wet fish).

I think it's a shame that people don't feel as though they can be sahp if they want to, even just for a couple of years. Having children isn't 'wrong' unless you do it for the 'wrong' reasons or abuse/neglect them, it's never been considered wrong in the past when women were expected to stay at home and men went out to work. Yes, times have changed and many women, myself included, like working but there is fuck all wrong with wanting to spend as much time with your DC as possible.

Increasing the minimum wage won't solve anything, it'll just cause more unemployment. You can't change what people's labour is worth. It'd just eliminate a lot of unskilled and low-skilled jobs.

See I loose my CB but the culture of this country makes it feel unfair to me when in reality it isn't. My scenario is as follows: I HAD to return to work at 12 weeks with dc1 and 16 weeks with dc2. Smp had run out and bills needed paying. Full time only as reduced hours were not allowed by my employer. Dh and I earned enough on paper not to need top up benefit but of course we got the universal CB. That has always been used to contribute towards child care costs. Nursery not needed now but holiday clubs are a necessity. We will now loose that and I am okay with it as I believe the benefits system needs overhauling but there is a bit of me that thinks it unfair we both work 40 hour weeks plus and shell out for after school and holiday clubs and do not get a penny of help

hurrah op! finally someone with sense.

"I think it's a shame that people don't feel as though they can be sahp if they want to"

not wanting to cause a SAHP vs WOHP debate but for many many many people it's not economically possible for one wage earner to stop working. For many many people it's not economically possible for one wage earner to stop workin unless they can claim some benefits.

I could, if I wanted, stop work and claim some more benefits but my opinion is that the benefits system isn't there so I can make a lifestyle choice, it's there to help those who are really in need.

A) MASSIVELY increase the minimum wage so that people who work full time can afford food, heat, housing and warmth.

or

B) provide a top up benefits system, so they can have all of the above.

See I see A) as shouldn't we pay people a living wage - a wage that they can actually live on

or B) should we get the goverment to top up companies wages bills so that share holders and CEO's can have nice big saleries with plenty of perks. For example Sainsbury pay the shop workers just above minumum wage - but he Justin King has a package of 10 million per year - no need to pay the shop floor workers any more as the government will top up their wages if needs be

Talk all you like (some posters) about not having more kids unless you can afford them. But many people could and did 'afford' them and then due to redundancy/bereavement/disability or sickness, are unable to work as much or at all. What are they supposed to do? Starve? Put the kids up for adoption? Live in a homeless hostel? Circumstances change and unless we show a little more compassion and a whole lot less judgement, then this country will go to the dogs in a different way....

"Talk all you like (some posters) about not having more kids unless you can afford them. But many people could and did 'afford' them and then due to redundancy/bereavement/disability or sickness, are unable to work as much or at all. What are they supposed to do? Starve? Put the kids up for adoption? Live in a homeless hostel? Circumstances change and unless we show a little more compassion and a whole lot less judgement, then this country will go to the dogs in a different way...."

I do totally understand this and my stance is and always has been that these benefits have to stay in place for the children.

ivy If you look at it that way the benefits system is subsidising big companies
! thats just mad.

Or you could look at it this way lilylightfoot - if Sainsbury paid their staff a living wage the CRO wouldn't be paid by the government and do you really want our government paying the CEO of a large company 10 million package, whether that be a bank a supermarket or clothing retail company?

Duelingfanjo I totally agree with you on your last post

i think df that if you had two or more kids , you'd get Child tax credits - if you earned less than 16k you'd get working tax credits (and if renting would be eligible for housing benefit). i don't know about childcare claims cos i've never used ofsted-registered child care.

you should get child benefit anyway.

hopefully you have updated your forecast for this year given your DHs current working status, as they'll use last years figures which may be higher. they only backdate one month.

most shop floor staff on minimum wage don't have families to support - or at least not from that as their sole source of income.

say what you like about JK - he turned Sainsburys around and is far better than Sir Peter Davis (who was claiming similar money but driving the company into the ground)

when i was in the situation of choosing - go full time and earn £150 pcm more (given reduction of bens) or stay PT and claim more bens - i chose the latter.

i felt it was the right thing to do.

Well said OP! Even my goat works 40 hours a week

This is a thread i started earlier this week. I thought it was relevant enough to link it here.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1596381-to-think-that-temp-jobs-will-be-rare-this-Xmas-now-more-companies-are-starting-to-use-workfare-again

most shop floor staff on minimum wage don't have families to support - or at least not from that as their sole source of income.

that comment is based on thin air and is not true

your second comment is true JK has done a good job but it doesn't mean his wages aren't coming out of the tax payers pockets and why should the tax payer be funding his package?

there is fuck all wrong with wanting to spend as much time with your DC as possible.

There is if you expect every other fucker to fund it.

Edgar Ivy Katy is right. That comment is not true. There are people working in part time retail who are having to use food banks.
And then cant get extra hours because a lot of companies are filling those hours with workfare.
So companies are getting their poor wages topped up with tax credits. Then with their workfare workers they are not paying a wage at all.
To add insult to injury the ONS said this week that workfarers are not counted as unemployed.
There are some links in the thread ive linked above.